From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-19 17:25:49
"Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> It's not my responsibility to do a unit testing for you. From where I
>> any feature which is not backed up with unit test, can't be considerred
> From where I stand testing is a minor concern as long as it's obvious
> that something /can/ work -- in dubio pro reo.
Can you provide formal proof? Nothing is obvios to me. And without unit test
>>>> Or do you expect us to believe your word?
>>> Believe whatever you want .
>> I believe your library doesn't work for DLLs. And you didn't even provide
>> test to prove me wrong.
> The purpose of testing is not to prove anything -- it about detecting
The purpose of unit testing is to prove that there are no defects and
program/library/class works as expected.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk